| Author | Message | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Member Username: Beast Post Number: 253 Registered: 5-2003 |
Arlie; The vapor is occuring in areas of low pressure. I.E. areas of higher air speed versus the surounding area. when we increase the speed the pressure drops and temprature of the gas drops if there is enough of a difference and enough humidity present we form a vapor cloud as seen in the pictures or like you see on the end plates of a race car wing on a humid day. The B2 picture is most likely due to the pressure difference and air speed difference between the center section fuselage ve. the wing area. the air flow has to speed up to stay with the air flow over the wing. Major difference in pressure + large humidity = Vapor Halo around center section. Rob | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1440 Registered: 5-2002 |
Mark, thanks very much for that link. Their statements seem to verify what I have alway thought: that vapor clouds do not necessarily indicate supersonic airflow. Their words: "While the general pattern is indeed similar to that seen in many transonic flows, there is nothing in the physics which would suggest that the region of condensation must be coincident with the region of supersonic flow." They also said: "A more sophisticated view is that this has nothing ( directly ) to do with the occurrence of supersonic flow or shock waves. Rather, it is an illustration of the Prandtl-Glauert singularity discussed in most classes on compressible flow." Also, for what it's worth, there are photographs of B-17s taken during WWII that show contrails off the propeller tips, wing tips, as well as engine exhaust. B-17s weren't exactly supersonic. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 213 Registered: 5-2003 |
Mark; Also a thing to remember is when you increase pressure you also increase heat on a gas, and vice versa. This why you can also see the vapor votex comming off the end plates of the wing of a race car on humid days. Almost makes for a poor mans wind tunnel to see these vapor concentrations in areas of low pressure. Rob | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 212 Registered: 5-2003 |
Tim; The reason you dont hear the boom in side a supersonic aircraft is that the shock waves colide behind the aircraft and the plane is trevling faster than the sound itself. Watch a fighter aircraft flying close to the ground at aprox 500 Knots. the plane will pass by before you hear the sound of it. while if a plane is flying at a slower speed you will hear the sound before the plane gets there since the sound waves are moving faster than the aircraft. Rob | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 211 Registered: 5-2003 |
Arlie; Here are some slides that i modeled in one of my engineering classes of a carb body. The main problem with the software we are using is one it is a 2D program and it will not import cad files they have to be hand generated and coded. This first slide is of a carb body venturi section with a center bomsight and throttle plate at 3/4 opening. The Mach speed is set to .55 about average for a 4 valve performance engine. I.E. race cars, Sport bikes, Ferrari's, Etc. 0.55M is related to the average port velocity. The time slice is 0.002 seconds to represent maximum port velocity at max lift in an engine turning 7000 RPM  If you notice there are a few areas around the throttle plate and venturi that are supersonic repersented by the red orange and yellow colors. This slide i put together this morning showing a multi element race wing similar to what f1 is running in Hungary this weekend. speed is set to 0.3M aprox 210 MPH Even though it is not showing signs of supersonic flow we can see that speed has doubled near the leading edge and between the lower elements.  In this slide we can see how there is an increase in pressure above the wing versus below the wing creating down force.  The software used computes 3.5 million simultanious equations per second and takes about 12 hours of CPU time on a Pentium 4 3.0GHz computer with 1GB of memory to calculate 0.025 seconds needless to say i did not run the entire simulation on the race wing. But we can see the results of what is happening to the airflow. Rob | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 3355 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie, a 'sonic boom' is only heard when 2 wave fronts are superimposed. This is why i think you dont hear them when in a concorde, at least you shouldnt, but i dont know for sure. | ||
| Russ Turner (Snj5)
Member Username: Snj5 Post Number: 403 Registered: 2-2003 |
It is such a brilliant plane - even more amazing when you see when it was designed. I think the tragic crash did the Concorde a fatal undeserved PR blow from which it could not cost effectively recover as less flamboyant aircraft. It's the best thing the British and French ever did together. | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 315 Registered: 4-2003 |
Richard Branson tried to buy BAs planes but was refused. It's the end of the line, they are going to museums.  | ||
| Andrew Wanamaker (Androza)
Junior Member Username: Androza Post Number: 53 Registered: 2-2003 |
What do they plan on doing with the Concordes after they stop flying? Will they put them on the market, mothball them, dismantle them, sell them to museums? Wonder if its only the end for the Concorde program with BA or AF, and the beginning of a new airline company. | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 313 Registered: 4-2003 |
Arlie To be brief, vapor clouds can form during a variety of flight conditions. They are often seen at transonic speeds. Moist air can contribute to the effect. Here is some info for you to ponder over a while. Do some web searches and you can find out even more. The Bumblebee thing has been figured out for some time now. Do some web searches and you can find out all about it. Here are some cool pictures: Subsonic B-2  Supersonic F-14  B-1  Subsonic F-18  | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1439 Registered: 5-2002 |
Thanks Rob. But just remember, according to "computer simulations", the bumblebee can't fly! "On an aircraft the area that is going supersonic is small, therefore the shock wave is overwhelmed by the slower high pressure subsonic air flow." If the smaller supersonic "shock wave" is OVERWHELMED by the slower high pressure subsonic air flow, then doesn't it stand to reason that what the photograph actually shows is the effect of the slower high pressure subsonic air flow, and NOT the supersonic effect? It the supersonic shock wave is large enough to produce such a huge visible effect that can be captured on film surrounding the aircraft, then doesn't it stand to reason that such a "large" effect would also produce an audible "sonic boom"? Pardon my aerodynamic ignorance, but it sounds like a contradiction. You're saying that the supersonic effect is so small that it doesn't produce a "sonic boom", but in the same breath you're saying that the supersonic effect is so great that it produces a giant cloud of condensed fog around the aircraft. Doesn't seem plausible to me. Doesn't seem that you can have it both ways. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 210 Registered: 5-2003 |
Arlie; The very end of a bull whip is a small enough area to where you can get the two shock waves to collide causing the crackle or boom. On an aircraft the area that is going supersonic is small, therefore the shock wave is overwhelmed by the slower high pressure subsonic air flow. it you listen to a highly modified motor close to the carb inlets or velocity stack when you open the throttle quickly you will hear a crackle. This is the intake port velocity going supersonic. the further away from the port and the sound is absorbed and overwhelmed by the other sounds comming from the motor. I will post some slides from some computer simulations done on a model of a carburator and 3 element race car wing that will show small localised areas of speed increase up to twice the ambient air flow. I just need to get them off of the university's computers in the morning. Rob Rob | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1438 Registered: 5-2002 |
"The sonic boom only happens once the entire airframe is going mach 1.0 or higher." Then how come one can hear a "sonic boom" from the very end of a bullwhip but you can't hear a "sonic boom" from the portions of the airflow on a jet plane that are breaking the sound barrier? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/barrier/boom/choice1.html It would seem to me that the "sonic boom" from portions of the massive airflow over a passing jet's wings would be audible. If the "crack" from the tiny end of a bullwhip can be heard, why can't those supposed "supersonic" portions of the airflow around that jet's fuselage? | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 208 Registered: 5-2003 |
Arlie; It is possible for various sections of an aircraft to have localised air velocity above Mach 1.0 The sonic boom only happens once the entire airframe is going mach 1.0 or higher. In fact inside of a throttle body of an internal combustion engine at various throttle openings and engine RPM there are areas that the air flow is supersonic. I have done some studies on this and will get a copy of the results from some Computational Fluid Dynamics modeling showing this fact. One of the aero tricks that F1 aerodynacist use is to increase the air speed on the under side of the car to create down force. Rob | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1433 Registered: 5-2002 |
I am going to respectfully disagree with the F4 Phantom shock wave photograph. I also observed the exact same phenomenon on an F-4 Phantom. This was around 1971 or 1972, somewhere along in that time frame when the Air Force Thunderbirds were flying F-4 Phantoms. They were giving an air show at Little Rock Air Force Base in Jacksonville, Arkansas. The weather was horrible that day. Total overcast sky, with tons of humidity in the air. So the Thunderbirds had to perform an abreviated low altitude version of their usual show. On one low level pass, the flashing "shock wave" phenomenon was easily visible. I had seen photographs in some aviation magazines of the same effect on other jet aircraft. But I don't think it has anything to do with "supersonic" speeds. It has to do with extreme high and low pressure areas surrounding the aircraft. The extreme humidity in the air causes fog to form in brief flashes in the low pressure areas surrounding the plane. The F4 that I saw was in no way flying at supersonice speeds because it was only 100 feet off the ground in front of a crowd of people. Supersonic speeds are not allowed in such conditions. The photograph says that the "local velocity on parts of the aircraft were supersonic". I doubt this. If any part of the plane had gone supersonic, wouldn't there have been a "sonic boom" occuring as the aircraft flew by and the wave front passed the point of the observer? There was no "sonic boom" when I observed the "shock wave" phenomena. | ||
| Ed Christophersen (Dr_c)
Junior Member Username: Dr_c Post Number: 65 Registered: 12-2002 |
at one of the Oshkosh EEA airshows, we (my son and I) had a demonstration flight on the Concorde. Although only about 1 hour long, they knew that we were all pilot type crazies so they pushed it. After taking off, we climbed with all 4 re-heaters -- and you really could feel the acceleration. We broke the sound barrier in a climb which was quite memorable. Then, when returning to the field, we did a flyby with all the reheaters blasting. Nothing quite like it. I would love to go on it again. It's the ultimate for anyone who likes speed. | ||
| PeterS (Peters)
Intermediate Member Username: Peters Post Number: 1346 Registered: 1-2003 |
Not quite MachII, but good enough   | ||
| Jordan Witherspoon (Jordan747_400)
Intermediate Member Username: Jordan747_400 Post Number: 1787 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jon, could you e-mail me at [email protected]? I collect airline stuff ranging from safety cards and air sick bags, to flight manuals and timetables. If you had some extra Concorde stuff I would be more than happy to buy some off of you if you didnt mind parting with it! | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 298 Registered: 4-2003 |
I went Mach 3 this morning and have photographic evidence:  | ||
| PeterS (Peters)
Intermediate Member Username: Peters Post Number: 1344 Registered: 1-2003 |
When I was about 9 years old, I mouthed off to my Mom pretty bad. I think it was about Mach2+ that I flew across the kitchen | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 932 Registered: 8-2001 |
Nika, I may have some extra Concorde Folders that were given to passnegers laying about if you want one. Unfortunetally it's from a British Airways flight not an Air France flight. British Airways gave everyone a leather folder (not real leather) with a 20 page booklet about the plane with glossy pictures. Dug up some old Concorde stuff including my two flight certificates the first one date June 1976 as on of the first few kids to cross the sound barrier on a Concorde. An amazing experience!   Two very fast pieces of machinery (BA Concorde #2 and Ayrton Senna's Williams Renault FW16)  | ||
| Wayne Ausbrooks (Lwausbrooks)
Moderator Username: Lwausbrooks Post Number: 2306 Registered: 8-2002 |
Moved to "OT." | ||
| Russ Turner (Snj5)
Member Username: Snj5 Post Number: 394 Registered: 2-2003 |
Austin 308, Must be a Bergstrom guy? My 500@50 initiation was in a Bham RF flown by the old High Rollers from LV when they flew recces. Those guys were terrific. I was a g weasel guy with them in a very sandy place, along time ago, far, far away..... It does bring back memories..yee-haa!! Of course now someone on FChat is going to demand pictures as proof not understanding I was a little busy at the time.... best to all rt | ||
| Jordan Witherspoon (Jordan747_400)
Intermediate Member Username: Jordan747_400 Post Number: 1780 Registered: 12-2002 |
This is a great thread! I still wish I could make a trip on it but I doubt I will  | ||
| Paul Brennan (Turboqv)
Junior Member Username: Turboqv Post Number: 79 Registered: 3-2003 |
The Concorde is and always be an amazing aviation feat. Here we are close to celebrating 100 years of controlled powered flight and the Concorde is shutting down!!!! Thank you Concorde!!  | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1915 Registered: 10-2002 |
Not supersonic, only subsonic, but at least in a fighter jet (LC-39 Albatross). Pulled about 6 gs doing loops and spirals.  Nope, didn't toss my cookies. But close. | ||
| Racer Nika (Racernika)
New member Username: Racernika Post Number: 45 Registered: 7-2003 |
I flew Kennedy NYC to Paris on the Concorde 5 years ago or so......what an experience! The plane rattled on the accent up until it went supersonic.....smooth as silk after that. Food was so-so yet service incredible. The one thing I have is the "Emergency Card" from the seat pocket - a little token of a great flight! I'm glad I had the opportunity!! | ||
| Charles T (Charles)
Junior Member Username: Charles Post Number: 129 Registered: 2-2001 |
A few details... Concorde takes off and lands at 250 mhp - faster than any other plane. Uses 4 reheaters (afterburners) to get up to speed. In flight it can not go supersonic until tower gives ok. Once OK received, 2 after burners are switched on then a few minutes later the other 2 are turned on (to reduce jolt to passengers). On the flight I was on, because this was a special flight with no cargo (other than people) the flight was exceptionally light, so the pilot gave us a thrill by turning on all 4 afterburners at once! It was truly like being shot from a rocket. It's an awesome plane - too bad its being taken out of service. Pilot also said that the only people who are higher or going faster than us were the ones in the space station. This special flight is suppose to be shown on the Travel Channel in the near future - probably about the time of BA's last flight at the end of October 2003. | ||
| Charles Brading (Austin308)
New member Username: Austin308 Post Number: 42 Registered: 6-2003 |
Ah the RF4C spent 4 years in a rec squadron (67 photo Recon). No longer around the pic did bring back some memories. | ||
| Charles T (Charles)
Junior Member Username: Charles Post Number: 128 Registered: 2-2001 |
Went Mach 2 at 60K feet with my 13 yr old son on the Concorde on 8/16. Special flight to nowhere just to experience the plane! BA offered this as a free special deal to "good" clients. Great time! | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 200 Registered: 5-2003 |
Mark; A little more info about the F-4 at Holloman AFB. That base is aprox 4000 feet above sea level. During august it is not uncommon for the desity altitude to be up over 8000 ft allowing those speeds on the deck. I used to live 50 miles west of Holloman at the larest lake in the state. It was a real tunning mightmare building and racing Jet Ski's due to the constant changes in Density Altitude. Rob | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 199 Registered: 5-2003 |
James; Most supersonic aircraft can reach thoses speeds at sea level. The reason it is not done on a regular basis is the air density at this level puts way too much stress on the airframe and requires full throttle operation. Mark; Great picture of the F-4 producing a vapor halo. I have seen a F-16 produce one one and like the story line says it is not there for long. If you blink you definatly missed it. Rob | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 296 Registered: 4-2003 |
I find this picture rather interesting. Sorry it is a bit difficult to read, had to shrink the pic to post but I didn't feel like retyping the text.  FWIW 1961 August 28 McDonnell F-4A Phantom II world speed record for three kilometers at less than 100meters altitude, 907.769 mph at Holloman AFB Lt. Huntington Hardisty USN, pilot and Lt. Earl H. DeEsch USN, RIO. | ||
| James (Admiral_thrawn)
New member Username: Admiral_thrawn Post Number: 41 Registered: 7-2003 |
An RF-4 couldn't even do 500 knots at 50 feet... The air is much too thick. | ||
| Gabe V (Racerxgto)
Junior Member Username: Racerxgto Post Number: 97 Registered: 4-2003 |
500 KNOTS? Appx 570mph in a recon Phantom? Where you cruising? 760mph or so, that's where the wall in the sky resides. Pilots say that you had to put the Phantom in a 30 degree dive at mil-power to get to mach 2, but even then, its gonna be a short run. Nobody here from the USAF 9th Strategic Recon Wing ? | ||
| Paul Brennan (Turboqv)
Junior Member Username: Turboqv Post Number: 78 Registered: 3-2003 |
500 KNOTS AT 50 FT agl in a in a RF-4 must have been in burner? what a rush! | ||
| L. (Testaroja)
Junior Member Username: Testaroja Post Number: 113 Registered: 5-2003 |
Only about 137 knots but at tree top level then as I got closer to the babes in the beach I would just hover and watch the girls wave, then land many feet away and walk along the beach. It was an easy way to pick girls up and a lot more fun than mach 1 or 2 and this time at 2 feet a.g.l. in my bed with some babe. | ||
| Il Commenadatore (Ilcommenadatore)
New member Username: Ilcommenadatore Post Number: 24 Registered: 8-2003 |
OFF TOPIC | ||
| Russ Turner (Snj5)
Member Username: Snj5 Post Number: 375 Registered: 2-2003 |
while I've been supersonic a bit at altitude, I'd agree with Ralph about flying low; my experience of being fast is 500kts at 50 feet in an RF-4 | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 896 Registered: 8-2001 |
Rob, Yes that was the threory although according to a video tape from PBS documentary neither side ever addmitted what truely happened. Thanks for correcting my mistake the Tu did not actually strike anything but the theroy was that the Tu pilot had to avoid hitting a French Mirage. Seems there was a lot of spying going on between the US (Boeing was also developing a version which was later dropped), Russia and Aerospatial. The documentary makes for a great cold war spy mystery. Tu-144 looked even better than the Concrode but apparently didn't handle as well. Jon | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 176 Registered: 5-2003 |
Jon; It was 2 years after the TU-144 went in. There was no airborn demo of the Concorde or TU-144. The time i was there the A-10 went down, That was a spectacular sight. from what i understand the TU broke apart after making a sudden manuver to avoid the french Mirage. Rob | ||
| Bill Hansen (Thatsmytoy)
New member Username: Thatsmytoy Post Number: 6 Registered: 4-2003 |
My Christmas present this year was flying the Air France concorde NY-Paris.. dinner at the Jules Verne restaurant on top of the Eiffel Tower..then 4 days in Bellagio, Italy on Lake Como...then down to San Marino for the F1 races...of course stopping in Modena! WOW! It was a great trip!!! PS..just got back from Monterey...so many Fcars** | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 888 Registered: 8-2001 |
Rob, Was that the year the TU-144 crashed when it was rumored to have hit a French fighter plane that was above in the clouds spying on the Russian plane? The US and Russia have a joint program going on now with an old refurbished TU-144. Jon | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 669 Registered: 3-2002 |
A-7K Corsair II aka.... SLUF Not Mach but going hot on the deck. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 174 Registered: 5-2003 |
Never have gotten the chance to fly the Concorde. But as a child i was at the paris airshow the year both the Concorde and the TU-144 was present. I have also had the chance to fly in the back seat of an F-15B and boomed the NM desert at 1.6M. To bad they dont have rides like this at Disneyland! | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member Username: Whart Post Number: 1582 Registered: 12-2001 |
I used to take the AF Concorde between NY and Paris on a regular basis when i was "commuting" to Scandanavia. Like Rijk, i found it much more pleasurable to zoom to Paris, and then take a connecting flight to Stockholm, or wherever, than to fly direct to these other cities on conventional passenger jets. I loved the analog cockpit, and didn't mind the "racing" seats; they continued to allow smoking in flight long after other carriers prohibited it. And, unlike the vast majority of other airlines, the passengers tended to be well-dressed and polite. Of course, paying those ticket prices did tend to keep out the riff-raff. My wife and i took a few pleasure flights on it as well, including one which connected us with the Orient Express for a evening transit out of Paris, arriving in Venice late the next afternoon. That was a nice contrast in transportation technologies. Its a shame it was a commercial failure; i much prefer getting there fast, since i fidget on planes. Given the astronomical prices for first class travel on conventional jets covering transcontinental or international routes, you'd think they could find a market today. (Everytime i call about a flight on American, NY to LA, its usually booked in first class, at well over 4k per r/t ticket). | ||
| Rijk Rietveld (Rijk365gtb4)
Member Username: Rijk365gtb4 Post Number: 280 Registered: 1-2002 |
I did it about 12 times in the 90's. Mach 2.02 is the fastest I saw on the screen. In the early 90's you did get leather writing folders, art books and leather covenience bags and they had 150 different wines on board (AF of course). By the mid 90's all that was gone. Since you are flying this high, there is no turbulance or head- and tail winds, so the time schedule is very accurate and transfers to connecting flights could be as close as 20 minutes. All connecting passengers were picked up by small busses and driven directly to the waiting connecting planes. So, going to Amsterdam, via Paris was still less time than flying direct. However, at the time the AF flights left JFK at 1 PM. it arrived at 10.45PM, just to late to make a connecting flight, they included a hotel. And you could choose if you stayed at the airport, or in town. If you went in town, they paid for the taxi up and down. So, I changed my strategy, and did not book the mornig flight, but the last flight out. This way I had a free day in Paris every time I went. Now the flight is at 8AM, so this does not work any more. And, I never paid more than bussiness class fare. Rijk | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Junior Member Username: Wax Post Number: 104 Registered: 7-2003 |
14 years ago I spent a week in the Dulles Concorde flight path & can verify Kofod's sworn testimony. ROOOOOAAAAR. Funny to see the tranquility of Manor House Rd. disrupted like clockwork (at noon, wasn't it?). @ 5 yrs. ago I saw a Stealth Batplane - altogether different in the awe it inspired. First spotted at a great distance, a friend and I initially thought it was a kite being flown in Griffith Park. As it flew over Los Feliz, CA at fairly low altitude while barely making a sound, it prompted us to salute the giant, which was definitely no kite. | ||
| James Angle (Jimangle)
Junior Member Username: Jimangle Post Number: 71 Registered: 9-2002 |
I went mach 1.09 in an F-16, in Singapore. I also pulled 9 g's twice and never blacked out. Jim | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 885 Registered: 8-2001 |
Done it a total of 5 times, 4 round trip. I was one of the first few kids to cross the sound barrier in 1976 in an Air France Concorde from Dulles International Airport to Charles De Gaulle in Paris. Anyone familiar with Dulles Airport can remember the huge transporter buses that would take you out to the Concorde. I was in utter amazement at the plane. It looked like a space ship. My only disappointment was that the windows were very small and you didn't really get a sensation of speed becasue you weren't travelling supersonic while on land so it was hard to see how fast you were going (no land to use as a referrence point). If memmory serves me correct the average Jumbo jet at the time reached something like 127 mph to get liftoff and the Concorde was well over 200. I used to frequently eat at the resteraunt at Dulles Airport to see the plane take off. It would rattle the silverware and wine glasses on the table. Even though it was no where near supersonic speed at take off it was ten times as loud as a normal jet. Last time I traveled aboard a Concorde was in 1998 with BA. On the trip over Jana Novatna, who had just won Wimbeldon a month earlier was on the flight and on the return trip Witney Houston was on board. On the return trip I was able to get some sense of the speed from take off as a storm was approaching and they got us off the ground at Heathrow pretty quickly and you could see us buzz past the coast line. Also neat to see the curvature of the earth and the purple looking sky at 59,000 feet. Truley and amazing machine, even more so in the early 70's when it was being flown (maiden commercial flight was May 1967). I have a wall plaque from Air France somewhere stating I had crossed the sound barrier. Will try to find it. Too bad the 70's oil crisis and the environmental whacko's killed the plane. Only 14 were built I think. Original plan was for well over 100 or so. I have a half dozen books on the plane and two vidoes (PBS and BBC). Sorry to see it go. Regards, 1995 F355 Challenge #23 | ||
| Jordan Witherspoon (Jordan747_400)
Intermediate Member Username: Jordan747_400 Post Number: 1738 Registered: 12-2002 |
Great shot Paul! Yea, one of my dreams was to fly on the Concorde but I dont think Ill make it I doubt there will be another supersonic airline for some time as well. | ||
| Paul Brennan (Turboqv)
Junior Member Username: Turboqv Post Number: 77 Registered: 3-2003 |
NOT MANY DAYS LEFT TO DO IT ON THE CONCORDE  |